sabato 11 agosto 2007

Plain English

JUDGE: The charge here is theft of frozen chickens.Are you the defendant?DEFENDANT: No, sir, I'm the guy who stole the chickens.

This rather funny interaction between a judge and a defendant shows how difficult legal language could be for the average person, let alone the complexity resulting from written texts.

For years and years the message coming from ordinary people has been and still is: clear communication. Since the ‘70s the plain English Movement born in America has been working to make government agencies, businesses, and professional organizations to revise their publications and to write in plain English.

Plain English Movement influenced legislation as well as education. Special laws came into effect to regulate the comprehensibility of consumer contracts. New York enacted America's first general plain language law in 1978, and several states have followed. Most states now require straightforward language in specific transactions, especially insurance policies.Eg- subpoena is now a witness summons, an in camera hearing is now a private hearing, and a writ is now a claim form. Even the venerable term plaintiff has been replaced by claimant.

There is also an interesting article "Progetto Chiaro and the Plain Language Movement" by Prof. Christopher Williams, published in Clarity, which illustrates the situation of plain language in Italy. He claims that it is the language of public administration in need of being revised rather than the proper legal Italian language.http://www.clarity-international.net/journals/53.pdf

Here are some advances on how to write in plain English, included in How to Write Good Legal Stuff[1] by Eugene Volokh, and J. Alexander Tanford.

While we read what is considerd bad legal English cover the part related to good writers and try to guess how you could change the sentences in “good English

10. Using passive rather than active voiceBad legal writers use passive voice"the ruling was made by the judge" "the complaint was filed by the plaintiff" "it was held that..."Good writers use the active voice"the judge ruled""the plaintiff filed a complaint" "the court held..."

Exception. Passive voice should be used only when you do not know the actor, or when the result is important."the documents were mysteriously destroyed." (actor unknown)"bill clinton was elected anyway" (result important)

9. NominalizationsBad legal writers turn verbs into nouns"reached a conclusion""granted a continuance""involved in a collision" "take action"Good writers just use the first verb"concluded""continued""collided""act"

8. Fear of calling things by their namesBad legal writers are afraid to call things by nameThe plaintiff, the defendant, the day in question, the scene of the accident, her place of employmentGood writers give their characters namesSusan Jones, Michael fitzhugh, June 3rd, in the parking lot, pizza hut

7. VerbosityBad legal writers use run-on sentences containing numerous qualifying phrases"the court in chester v. Morris, a case involving a similar traffic accident, held that a person riding a bicycle must adhere to the same standards as a person driving a car, although it limited its holding to the facts of that case, which included the fact that the bicyclist was intoxicated.

Good writers use several short sentenceschester v. Morris involved a similar traffic accident. The court held that a bicyclist must adhere to the same standards as a person driving a car. The opinion is limited to situations in which the bicyclist is intoxicated.

6. Qualifying phrasesBad legal writers put qualifying phrases in the middle of sentences"the court, although it limited its holding, held that a bicyclist must adhere to traffic rules" "the court has, although with limits, held that a bicyclist must adhere to traffic rules" "the court held, although with limits, that a bicyclist must adhere to traffic rules"Good writers put qualifying phrases at the end of sentences or eliminate them altogether"the court held that a bicyclist must adhere to traffic rules, although it limited its holding ..." "the court held that a bicyclist must adhere to traffic rules"

5. RedundancyBad legal writers list every known"every town, city, or village""cease and desist" "give, devise and bequeath""null and void"Good writers use a single word"every municipality""stop""give" "void"

4. Meaningless adverbs used in a vain effort to make a weak point appear strongerBad legal writers use meaningless adverbsChester v. Morris clearly held that bicyclists must adhere to the rules of the road. The fact that he was drunk is extremely important the holding is very narrow. It is really important that he was not wearing a helmet. He was undoubtedly drunk. It is manifestly obvious thatGood writers diligently avoid useless adverbsChester v. Morris held that bicyclists must adhere to the rules of the road. The fact that he was drunk is important the holding is narrow. It is important that he was not wearing a helmet. He was drunk. It is obvious that drunken bicyclists are dangerous3. Meaningless weasel words used because you're afraid to take a positionBad legal writers have a fear of being wrong and use weasel words

1. Phrases with absolutely no meaning whatsoeverAnd the clearest sign of the bad legal writer is the use of totally meaningless (and usually pompous) phrases"I would like to point out that chester v, morris was overruled" "I would argue that chester v. Morris is not applicable.""it should be noted that chester v. Morris was decided before the statute was amended.""evidence that the defendant was drunk does not operate to remove the issue of contributory negligence""despite the fact that the defendant was drunk, he operated his bicycle carefully." "in fact, he should be commended.""during the course of his ride, he never fell off his bicycle""it has been determined that he was wearing his helmet.""it is obvious that a drunken bicyclist is a danger on crowded streets." "it is clear that he had the right of way. He was clearly justified in crossing the street"

Good writers omit them"chester v, morris was overruled""chester v. Morris is not applicable.""chester v. Morris was decided before the statute was amended.""evidence that the defendant was drunk does not remove the issue of contributory negligence""despite the defendant's drunkenness, he operated his bicycle carefully." "he should be commended.""during his ride, he never fell off his bicycle""he was wearing his helmet.""a drunken bicyclist is a danger on crowded streets." "he had the right of way. He was justified in crossing the street"[1] Eugene Volokh, J. Alexander Tanford, How to Write Good Legal Stuff, Indiana Univ – Bloomington, 2001